The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Lusnak v. Bank of America, N.A.—holding that the National Bank Act did not preempt a California law requiring banks to pay interest on certain funds held in escrow accounts for mortgage borrowers—has received considerable attention in the consumer finance industry. Bank of
Lucia Nale is a litigation partner in our Chicago office, focusing on general civil litigation, with a particular emphasis on the defense of financial institutions in the consumer financial services industry.
Lucia is co-chair of the firm’s Consumer Class Action practice and frequently provides compliance advice and litigation risk analysis to industry clients. She represents a number of prominent financial institutions, including national banks, federal savings banks, state-chartered banks, mortgage lenders, investment advisors and automobile finance companies, and serves as national consumer class action defense counsel for particular clients.
U.S. House Passes Bills That Would Change the Standards for Federal Class Actions and Fraudulent Joinder
The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed two bills that would reform the standards for bringing federal class actions and raise the bar for keeping lawsuits in state courts.
The first bill, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 (HR 985), would impose several new requirements on class action and…
Supreme Court: Fannie Mae’s “Sue-and-be-Sued” Authority Does Not Grant Federal Courts Jurisdiction Over All Cases Involving Fannie Mae
The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) operates under a corporate charter, which authorizes Fannie Mae “to sue and to be sued, and to complain and to defend, in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal.” 12 U.S.C. § 1723a(a). On January 18, the U.S. Supreme Court held that this “sue-and-be-sued” clause does not…
Florida Supreme Court Holds that Each Default Resets the Statute of Limitations for Filing a Foreclosure Complaint
On November 3, in a case that was closely watched by industry participants, the Florida Supreme Court held that a mortgagor’s default that occurs after the dismissal of a prior foreclosure action in which the loan payments were accelerated resets the five-year statute of limitations for filing a subsequent foreclosure suit. In Bartram v. U.S. Bank, N.A., the court explained that dismissal of the initial foreclosure action has the effect of returning the parties to their pre-foreclosure complaint status, where the mortgage remains an installment loan and the mortgagor has the right to continue to make installment payments without being obligated to pay the entire amount due under the note and mortgage.
Continue Reading Florida Supreme Court Holds that Each Default Resets the Statute of Limitations for Filing a Foreclosure Complaint